To sum things up, the Ricketts completely overpaid for the team. As Lip just said, they don't have the cash to pay for what would be, as you say, a very expensive and difficult renovation themselves. Problem is, the state has neither the money to help with a renovation nor to build a park in the suburbs. How this plays out from here I have no idea.

This is where a corporate sponsorship might be their only option. I doubt they would ever get rid of the name "Wrigley Field" so it would have to be something like "Microsoft's Wrigley Field - Home of the Chicago Cubs" for example. The only way a company would ever get money back from the PR would be to make sure every time an announcer or commercial mentions "Wrigley Field", their company name is also mentioned.

To sum things up, the Ricketts completely overpaid for the team. As Lip just said, they don't have the cash to pay for what would be, as you say, a very expensive and difficult renovation themselves. Problem is, the state has neither the money to help with a renovation nor to build a park in the suburbs. How this plays out from here I have no idea.

They'll get some sort of money from the state eventually; but not enough to cover everything they want it to cover. Sadly, the Ricketts were blind fans instead of shrewd business people when they bought the team. None of them seem to realize the only thing worth anything IS the ballpark.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: IF the Cubs were to move from Wrigley, no matter what they did, they would become one of the worst drawing teams in MLB. They spent nearly thirty years promoting the ballpark, not the team itself. When you run radio ads about the history that happened at Wrigley, and mention "be a part of the experience" enough times, fans get conditioned to that aspect of your product.

__________________

The Frontman Family, including a growing Future Manager of the Chicago White Sox, circa 2045.

Breast Cancer Awareness doesn't end on Oct. 31st. Folks, get educated on it and get involved. Ladies, please get tested. For more info, visit www.komen.org.

They'll get some sort of money from the state eventually; but not enough to cover everything they want it to cover.

When you say eventually, do you mean months, year, decade? I assume you live in the state of Illinois and if so you do know what is going on in this state? Unable to go any further on that here, I hope you mean a lot closer to a decade than months or years.

They'll get some sort of money from the state eventually; but not enough to cover everything they want it to cover. Sadly, the Ricketts were blind fans instead of shrewd business people when they bought the team. None of them seem to realize the only thing worth anything IS the ballpark.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: IF the Cubs were to move from Wrigley, no matter what they did, they would become one of the worst drawing teams in MLB. They spent nearly thirty years promoting the ballpark, not the team itself. When you run radio ads about the history that happened at Wrigley, and mention "be a part of the experience" enough times, fans get conditioned to that aspect of your product.

That depends on where the new ballpark would be built and how it was designed. If Ricketts or any other future owner makes the decision that it is better to build a new ballpark than renovate Wrigley, I would think they would try to duplicate the design and slightly modernize it.

There was talk a few years ago about the Tribune company buying up some land near Northwestern and planning to build a clone of Wrigley in the event they could not come to terms with the city on a renovation plan with additional night games.

A ballpark in the design of the 70s era multi-purpose saucers would not work, but a larger, more modern Wrigley Field clone nestled into another north side neighborhood would probably work.

That depends on where the new ballpark would be built and how it was designed. If Ricketts or any other future owner makes the decision that it is better to build a new ballpark than renovate Wrigley, I would think they would try to duplicate the design and slightly modernize it.

There was talk a few years ago about the Tribune company buying up some land near Northwestern and planning to build a clone of Wrigley in the event they could not come to terms with the city on a renovation plan with additional night games.

A ballpark in the design of the 70s era multi-purpose saucers would not work, but a larger, more modern Wrigley Field clone nestled into another north side neighborhood would probably work.

You can "duplicate the design" all you want. It will no longer be the same ballpark, and very few people will think it's the same experience. If you do enough modernizing to make it comfortable (instead of the cramped, bad sightlines place that it is) then it will just be a modern ballpark with ivy on the walls. If you don't modernize enough, you'll have a cramped, uncomfortable ballpark with a concourse that's small and has no view of the field, but without any of the supposed "history" of Wrigley. It's a lose-lose.

__________________

"Nellie Fox, that little son of a gun, was always on base and was a great hit-and-run man. He sprayed hits all over."
Yogi Berra in the New York Sunday News (July 12, 1970)

They'll get some sort of money from the state eventually; but not enough to cover everything they want it to cover. Sadly, the Ricketts were blind fans instead of shrewd business people when they bought the team. None of them seem to realize the only thing worth anything IS the ballpark.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: IF the Cubs were to move from Wrigley, no matter what they did, they would become one of the worst drawing teams in MLB. They spent nearly thirty years promoting the ballpark, not the team itself. When you run radio ads about the history that happened at Wrigley, and mention "be a part of the experience" enough times, fans get conditioned to that aspect of your product.

But this might be a perfect time for a change if you think about it. If they announced that they were building a new stadium n Roesmont people would flock to Wrigley for the next 2 years to get in the baseball "experience". Ticket prices would sky rocket and the Cubs would rake in the revenue even with a bad team the next 2 years.

In 2015 if they moved into a new venue, they actually might have a good team by then if their rebuild goes as planned. Then they'd have a good team moving into new park (which always does well in the 1st year of a new venue) and still has a pretty loyal fan base. Long term (over decades) it may not be the best move but the in next 7-10 year short term it could very well be.

You can "duplicate the design" all you want. It will no longer be the same ballpark, and very few people will think it's the same experience. If you do enough modernizing to make it comfortable (instead of the cramped, bad sightlines place that it is) then it will just be a modern ballpark with ivy on the walls. If you don't modernize enough, you'll have a cramped, uncomfortable ballpark with a concourse that's small and has no view of the field, but without any of the supposed "history" of Wrigley. It's a lose-lose.

The history and Wrigley experience is a modern phenonomenon. I remember when they closed the upper deck in the late 70s due to poor performance and poor attendance. It was not until the Tribune purchased the team and the WGN superstation took off that Wrigley Field became the shrine of all things baseball.

Remember, this is a fan base who purchased over 3 million tickets to watch their second worst club in team history in 2012. Losing is cool as long as they can enjoy the sunshine and beer so I don't agree that Rickett's is in a lose-lose situation with the team. He is just trying to sing a sad song to gain public funding.

The Cubs were closing the upper deck at the park as late as September 1983. Have the video to prove it.

Lip

I'm sure they did, but their mystique changed in 1984 when the Cubs went to the playoffs. I remember pictures of Bob Dernier running down a flyball in centerfield and there were fans in the bleachers wearing shirts w/ties. After that, it seemed Wrigley was marketed in an entirely new way.

The history and Wrigley experience is a modern phenonomenon. I remember when they closed the upper deck in the late 70s due to poor performance and poor attendance. It was not until the Tribune purchased the team and the WGN superstation took off that Wrigley Field became the shrine of all things baseball.

I understand all of that. It's been a dump since I was a little kid in the fifties, and only recently became a shrine. But a shrine it has become, and that WILL NOT be duplicated in another park, and nothing will change that. Tourists absolutely will not make a trip to Pseudo Wrigley a "must" on their trip to Chicago itinerary.

If the bad guys on the Northside don't take the Rosemont offer, perhaps Rosemont will make the offer to the White Sox when their present lease expires after the 2026 season. I would be surprised if the White Sox renew the lease at the Cell. I figure in another 10 years (2023) the White Sox will start looking around for a new stadium in the Chicagoland area. All of the White Sox attendance problems stem from the fact that the White Sox fan base and potential fan base is no longer on the Southside of Chicago. Years ago most of the White Sox attendance came from the neighborhoods of the Southside of Chicago. That's simply not the case anymore. When you consider the fact that most of the White Sox attendance comes from different parts of the Chicagoland area, I think its amazing they draw as well as they do. If you draw 2 million people a year at the Cell and the majority of the fans are coming from somewhere besides the Southside of Chicago, I think basically you've drawn quite well.

I agree go there get a stadium with a retractable roof that would blow away the Cell. The location has good location for cars trains and buses. They could even run the El from Ohare to there easily.

I understand all of that. It's been a dump since I was a little kid in the fifties, and only recently became a shrine. But a shrine it has become, and that WILL NOT be duplicated in another park, and nothing will change that. Tourists absolutely will not make a trip to Pseudo Wrigley a "must" on their trip to Chicago itinerary.

That's why I think it's Rickett's (or any future owner) best bet to rebuild Wrigley, even if he has to do it brick by brick. They already renovated the outfield bleachers, center field scoreboard area and the lower box deck seats. They need to modernize the clubhouses, training facilities, lower deck concourse and a completely new upper deck/concourse. They should also move their business offices off-site to allow for extra amenities perhaps to a building across the street and then work a real roof-top owners deal where they install outfield backdrop lights on top of the rooftops, aka Camden Yarks style.

I understand all of that. It's been a dump since I was a little kid in the fifties, and only recently became a shrine. But a shrine it has become, and that WILL NOT be duplicated in another park, and nothing will change that. Tourists absolutely will not make a trip to Pseudo Wrigley a "must" on their trip to Chicago itinerary.

Saw a lot of games there in the 50s and I don't think I would have called it a dump back then. One thing PK Wrigley did was to spend money on yearly improvements, If the Comiskey's had PK's money the Baseball Palace might still be with us.
Saw a game at Connie Mack Stadium in 67, now that place was a dump.

__________________Coming up to bat for our White Sox is the Mighty Mite, Nelson Fox.